It may be the case that x charges y with Islamophobia without a true basis. i.e. y does not actually fear and hate Muslims or the Islamic faith, but may be making political arguments about terrorism etc.

So, sure, I grant you that.

However, it does not follow that there are no people who fear and hate Muslims and the Islamic faith. For example, there are so many documented cases where I come from of women wearing the hijab being spat on or verbally abused for the mere fact of identifying as a Muslim. If that is not Islamophobia, what then is it? Metta?

For example, there are so many documented cases where I come from of women wearing the hijab being spat on or verbally abused for the mere fact of identifying as a Muslim. If that is not Islamophobia, what then is it? Metta?

What were those women actually told?

Where I come from, people sometimes criticize others severely, but it is for being different, for being abnormal, for not fitting in, not specifically for being Muslim, Buddhist, wearing dreadlocks etc.

For example, there are so many documented cases where I come from of women wearing the hijab being spat on or verbally abused for the mere fact of identifying as a Muslim. If that is not Islamophobia, what then is it? Metta?

What were those women actually told?

Where I come from, people sometimes criticize others severely, but it is for being different, for being abnormal, for not fitting in, not specifically for being Muslim, Buddhist, wearing dreadlocks etc.

What is the interest in denying the fact that some people do actually hate Muslims? If someone verbally abuses and spits on a Muslim woman in a hijab who is in every respect a peaceful person, what is the motivation for trying to assert "the only plausible motivation for this abuse is a generalised notion of difference?"

It really is absurd.

Next I'll be hearing about how the holocaust really had nothing to do with Jews, but rather, was just an abstract intolerance which expressed itself in a particular configuration.

What is the interest in denying the fact that some people do actually hate Muslims?

Uh. Noone's denying that.

If someone verbally abuses and spits on a Muslim woman in a hijab who is in every respect a peaceful person, what is the motivation for trying to assert "the only plausible motivation for this abuse is a generalised notion of difference?"

Uh again. Nobody did that.
I'm saying that sometimes, people are abused for reasons other than those that they (or their defenders) think they are being abused for. I think it's important to discern why exactly someone is being abused, as only that way, effective countermeasures can be devised.

As a personal example: I once, after yet another difficult exchange, told a Christian "friend" that I don't like him. His reply was that I dislike him because he's telling the truth (about God and Jesus). That was not the case though. I disliked him because he didn't care about me and he didn't keep his promises to me. But he didn't care about that either. He just insisted in his preconceived notion that I, as an atheist, disliked him, a Christian, "because he was telling the truth about God". He presented himself as a martyr for his religion, when in fact I didn't dislike him because of his religion.

For example, there are so many documented cases where I come from of women wearing the hijab being spat on or verbally abused for the mere fact of identifying as a Muslim. If that is not Islamophobia, what then is it? Metta?

What were those women actually told?

Where I come from, people sometimes criticize others severely, but it is for being different, for being abnormal, for not fitting in, not specifically for being Muslim, Buddhist, wearing dreadlocks etc.

What is the interest in denying the fact that some people do actually hate Muslims? If someone verbally abuses and spits on a Muslim woman in a hijab who is in every respect a peaceful person, what is the motivation for trying to assert "the only plausible motivation for this abuse is a generalised notion of difference?"

It really is absurd.

Next I'll be hearing about how the holocaust really had nothing to do with Jews, but rather, was just an abstract intolerance which expressed itself in a particular configuration.

There is Islamophobia in this world. But not every case of verbal or physical assault qualifies as Islamophobia. Sometimes, it could just be a misunderstanding, fight over personal issues, or any number of things unrelated to religion.

What is the interest in denying the fact that some people do actually hate Muslims?

Uh. Noone's denying that.

If someone verbally abuses and spits on a Muslim woman in a hijab who is in every respect a peaceful person, what is the motivation for trying to assert "the only plausible motivation for this abuse is a generalised notion of difference?"

Uh again. Nobody did that.
I'm saying that sometimes, people are abused for reasons other than those that they (or their defenders) think they are being abused for. I think it's important to discern why exactly someone is being abused, as only that way, effective countermeasures can be devised.

As a personal example: I once, after yet another difficult exchange, told a Christian "friend" that I don't like him. His reply was that I dislike him because he's telling the truth (about God and Jesus). That was not the case though. I disliked him because he didn't care about me and he didn't keep his promises to me. But he didn't care about that either. He just insisted in his preconceived notion that I, as an atheist, disliked him, a Christian, "because he was telling the truth about God". He presented himself as a martyr for his religion, when in fact I didn't dislike him because of his religion.

I grant you that Islamophobia might sometimes be falsely imputed. I granted this earlier in the thread.

But "no one is denying that" - surely the very fact of this thread demonstrates that people manifestly are denying it. The very title of the thread proposes that Islamophobia might be a nonsense term, and many posts are clearly in the affirmative of that proposition.

And so it follows, that if someone comes on to this thread with examples that support that position, it looks rather a lot like an intention to deny it...does it not?

Where I come from, people sometimes criticize others severely, but it is for being different, for being abnormal, for not fitting in, not specifically for being Muslim, Buddhist, wearing dreadlocks etc.

What is the interest in denying the fact that some people do actually hate Muslims? If someone verbally abuses and spits on a Muslim woman in a hijab who is in every respect a peaceful person, what is the motivation for trying to assert "the only plausible motivation for this abuse is a generalised notion of difference?"

It really is absurd.

Next I'll be hearing about how the holocaust really had nothing to do with Jews, but rather, was just an abstract intolerance which expressed itself in a particular configuration.

There is Islamophobia in this world. But not every case of verbal or physical assault qualifies as Islamophobia. Sometimes, it could just be a misunderstanding, fight over personal issues, or any number of things unrelated to religion.

Sure. I'm not arguing that every instance of antagonism towards a Muslim person is unambiguously grounded in Islamophobia. I'm just saying - like you - that some are.

But "no one is denying that" - surely the very fact of this thread demonstrates that people manifestly are denying it. The very title of the thread proposes that Islamophobia might be a nonsense term, and many posts are clearly in the affirmative of that proposition.

And so it follows, that if someone comes on to this thread with examples that support that position, it looks rather a lot like an intention to deny it...does it not?

Hm, I haven't thought of that, and the OP starts out with a question anyway.

But "no one is denying that" - surely the very fact of this thread demonstrates that people manifestly are denying it. The very title of the thread proposes that Islamophobia might be a nonsense term, and many posts are clearly in the affirmative of that proposition.

And so it follows, that if someone comes on to this thread with examples that support that position, it looks rather a lot like an intention to deny it...does it not?

Hm, I haven't thought of that, and the OP starts out with a question anyway.

The OP is pretty clear in denying that the term has any meaning. So I think the question framed by that poster is very much rhetorical.